population is growing at the rate of almost 1 percent per year
The following statement appeared in the Smithsonian in 2006.
“The United States’ population is growing at the rate of almost 1 percent per year, thanks in part to immigration and its secondary effects. Not only does the United States accept more legal immigrants as permanent residents than the rest of the world combined, but these recent arrivals tend to have more children than established residents—until, as their descendants attain affluence and education, the birthrates of these Americans also drop below replacement levels. Overall—that is, counting both immigrants and the native-born—the United States has a replacement rate of 2.03.”
Since then population growth has been decreasing.
U.S. birth rate continues to fall : NPR
Women in the U.S. gave birth to roughly 710,000 fewer children last year compared with the nation’s peak in 2007, according to preliminary data released this week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Chart: Vital Statistics Rapid Release, Number 043 (April 2026)
Lead researcher Brady Hamilton, a demographer with the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, said the latest one percent drop in “general fertility” from 2024 to 2025 is part of a long-running downward trend.
“Since 2007, there’s been a decline in the general fertility rate [in the U.S.] of 23%,” Hamilton told NPR.
The impact of that change in real numbers is sizable: In 2007, there were 4,316,233 babies born. Last year, even though the nation’s population as a whole is larger, there were only 3,606,400 newborns.
There’s no consensus over why women and couples have shifted their behavior so significantly. Some experts point to economic factors, others say cultural influences, and better access to education and contraception for women are driving the change.
“[This study] does not provide information about the decisions people were making and the factors they were taking into consideration as they were thinking about starting a family or increasing their family size,” Hamilton said.
Whatever the causes, many demographers and economists see the apparent shift toward smaller families and fewer children as a significant concern for the nation and its labor force. especially as immigration into the U.S. has also plunged under the Trump administration.
A report published earlier this year by the Congressional Budget Office found that because of these combined trends, the nation’s population is likely to age more rapidly and also grow far less, with roughly 8 million fewer residents in the U.S. by 2055 than once predicted.
“The population [of people in the U.S.] age 24 or younger is projected to decline in each of the next 30 years,” the CBO’s authors concluded.
The downward fertility trend in the U.S. reflects an even more dramatic shift in much of the world.
In East Asia, Europe and even many South American countries, the total fertility rate has plunged far below what’s known as the “replacement” level. That means not enough children are being born to maintain a stable population without significant levels of immigration.
In the U.S., too, the total fertility rate is now well below replacement level. But some economists say it’s unclear whether the trend toward fewer children reflects a permanent national shift.
One possibility, according to economist Martha Bailey, head of the California Center for Population Research at the University of California, Los Angeles, is that U.S. women are delaying motherhood and will have more children later in life.
“We’re seeing big drops in fertility rates for young women, teenagers and women in their 20s,” Bailey said. “What’s not yet clear is whether or not those same women will go on to have children later on.”
A CDC study published in March of last year found fertility rates rising among women in their 30s and 40s, though not fast enough to offset drops among younger women.
Bailey said it makes sense to have a policy discussion around ideas that might make it easier for couples to choose to have children, or to have more kids during their lifetimes.
“People are having the number of children they want and that they can afford at a time that makes the most sense for them,” she said. “What I don’t think anyone is in favor of is a Handmaid’s Tale type policy regime, where we’re trying to talk families into having children they don’t want.”
One silver lining in this data is a sizable drop in the rate of teenagers giving birth to children, which fell by 7% in 2025. Public health officials say the decline in children and teens having children represents major progress.
“What is actually affecting the birth rates are likely lower rates of teen pregnancy overall, which is in the context of higher use of contraception and lower sexual activity for youth, and then also continued access to abortion care,” said Bianca Allison, pediatrician and associate professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, in an interview with NPR.
This sort of discussion baffles me. What’s the point? It seems pretty obvious that there are more than enough human beings, even if they aren’t distributed optimally in terms of race, age, nationality. When large numbers of people are motivated to move elsewhere, all too often there is huge and hateful resistance. The ethnocentrism and racism that motivates this reaction are large factors in the sad state of our own social structure, a structure which unsurprisingly makes raising children expensive and fosters competition for social goods.
@Deb,
I agree. There’s good evidence that humanity has greatly exceeded the long-term carrying capacity of the planet. There’s also good evidence that if global climate change continues unabated, the planet will be engulfed in resource wars by 2050.
Joel:
Perhaps, I am mistaken? I believe the issue was about the US. In which case, we will still need Labor. I do not believe AI will be replacing humans so completely. The decline in population in the US is on the horizon. It is already happening in countries in Europe.
New population could come from other countries
@Bill,
I was responding to Deb’s comment, which doesn’t explicitly mention the US. While I don’t believe AI will replace humans completely, there’s a lot of daylight between ‘not at all’ and ‘completely.’ I don’t know enough to predict either the timing or scope of AI replacement of human labor, but I believe it will be significant in the next 30 years. If that’s correct, then some decline in US population could be a painless way to adapt.
My preference is for more immigration over more procreation.
Deb:
Did we talk about race, age, nationality? Even if we did, why is this an issue . . . unless you are Trump. There has always been a degree of resistance and discrimination to newcomers to the United States. It is remarkedly playing out in this president’s policies as well as his supporting political party. I guess I understand their resistance to immigrants, those of different cultures. That has been the history of the United States. And it still is . . .
The hateful resistance today comes from our political leaders. And this one is an example of how bad it can really be. A question for you. Why didn’t 3 million people vote in the last election? Why did millions of voters vote for others or write ins. This plays to your comment in terms of hate and resistance. We can see how this is playing out with the efforts to displace thousands by this administration to Africa or South America. Do you think voters made the right decision not to vote or vote for others and write-ins.
Funny part of this, I served with people in the late sixties and early seventies who were promised citizenship if they enlisted. Did it happen? I do not know. I do know, recruiters lied quite a bit to us. When your father’s family is military, you know how the game is played.
There is still such a thing as Labor input. If you do not have such, you lose productivity. I spent quite a few years consulting to manufacturing companies. It was surprising how many upper management critters did not understand the need for well compensated direct labor input which includes healthcare and decent wages. You will still need Labor input in the United States. And you will need it in the future too. It is not going away anytime soon. It may be somewhat mitigated by AI.
So yes, a decreasing aging population is problematic and needs replacement with newer and younger citizens. It does not appear we will home grow them so we allow immigration to fill the future gap. Or we see an economic decline in the near future which will have a severe impact.
One mitigating factor is that GDP growth doesn’t affect most Americans. Over the past 40 years, for example, GDP per capita has doubled, but the value of an hour’s labor only half the share it once would have. Productivity has soared over those four decades, but wages have crept along well behind.
Rising GDP has been irrelevant to most Americans. There’s a good chance that falling GDP will have little effect either and for the same reasons.
Kaleberg:
Without Labor input there is little value to the product. And Labor gets the smallest portion of the profit. When I (we) did throughput analysis, we did look for ways to improve the length of time for manufacture.
Straighten the flow of processing, minimize lead time to produce, find better suppliers, cut in process, raw material and finish good inventory. We made some manufacturers profitable or more profitable.
With Ingersol Engineers and on my own, I did do such. Of course, business leaders are not going to share the wealth coming from greater output from Labor.
Bill, I think you misunderstood my comment. Absolutely we (meaning all states in the current configuration of global exchange) require immigration to maintain the maximal population of desired workers. Or we could create a border that is porous for workers, along the line of the EU.
My objection is the focus on birthrate as the problem and the solution. I don’t agree with this analysis. We do not need more of any particular nationality or demographic. Nor do I think we need more humans in total.
I think the current state of our world, with so many desperate people trying so hard to flee the terrible situations in their home countries only to find themselves turned away, placed in camps, repelled and rebuffed by countries that bemoan the need for more young people to shore up the social system being over-burdened with unproductive oldies should make it clear that viewing the problem as too few of “us” demonizes “them”. There are plenty of people to go around.
Deb:
When I first read the original comment, I was getting ticked. Just my initial reaction (by the way). Then I stepped back a bit to better explain, which I did. The point of much of the information there (even though I did not explain it as well [to which you are correct in pointing out a flaw]) is we are “not” replacing ourselves. Furthermore, we have plenty of room in the United States to date and to accommodate more and younger people.
Reproduction is not the only way. The growth in a younger population must come from somewhere. Reproduction is one way. It appears, we are not doing such for various reasons. Cost being one and desire to do so another.
If I was smart enough, I would have said in reply. Oh, I was just trying to draw someone out with a counter point. Unfortunately, I missed the opportunity to do so. I am more of a “just the facts” type of guy.
To which the point you made, is correct. Now how do we get past the presidential bigot and his lackeys in office?
Thank you for being tolerant of my commentaries and persistent in making a point of overlooking another way. Noe, how do we convince others?
Bill, your anger was clear.
I have spent time overseas and am aware of the way our military has capitalized on the talents and loyalty of many people who would otherwise have no path to citizenship. I have been involved with the DACA program and have seen how those great kids were given the tantalizing carrot of some form of legal status but never quite got it. I tutored unaccompanied minors who were going to school during the day and working night shifts in chicken “fabrication” plants. So I have some personal axes to grind in this.
Of course this is a political problem. But like so many political problems of our day its real value to both parties is its use to incite anger at the other party.
Frankly, I feel trying to convince others, presumably nationalists who are not aware of their nativism or xenophobes who pride themselves on their “true” patriotism, is breath and energy misspent. We should leverage the hate for the moneyed and the grifters to fight for real social equity, national public health, some form of guaranteed retirement for all, those social goods that require social justice and fair taxation. Then perhaps many of us would feel less insecure and frightened about the future of not only our own kids but other people’s as well.
And that’s my last word on this!
@Deb,
Thank you for your service.
Deb:
There is never a last word.
My point of the promises of citizenship was more likely than not, “they were lied too” as the US needed cannon fodder in the late sixties.” My employment was international. I spent a lot of my time overseas working in supply chain for international companies. It got to the point where I asked one boss if I could go home. I do not believe I am a patriot. I am an American, US Citizen who came from one first born in America Italian and one whose family had a history going back to the Mayflower. The family did not respect her. Even so, I would not have the experience today of being discriminated against like many incur in the US today.
To the points you made in the last paragraph are very true. I have not found a way to change what was ingrained in them from birth. It will change though as they are out-numbered by the immigrants who will come as we will need Labor.
Deb, Thank you for your comments and being a person of character. Please hang around Joel and I.
Bill (run75441)